Originally Posted by mayonaise
anyone read Michael Crichton's book State of Fear? global warming activists would probably be pretty pissed off if they read it..
Actually, I'm well familiar with this book. There's an interesting counterpoint to it here, written by a climatologist:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74
Specifically, I like this paragraph:
At the end of the book, Crichton gives us an author's message. In it, he re-iterates the main points of his thesis, that there are some who go too far to drum up support (and I have some sympathy with this), and that because we don't know everything, we actually know nothing (here, I beg to differ). He also gives us his estimate, ~0.8 C for the global warming that will occur over the next century and claims that, since models differ by 400% in their estimates, his guess is as good as theirs. This is not true. The current batch of models have a mean climate sensitivity of about 3 C to doubled CO2 (and range between 2.5 and 4.0 degrees) (Paris meeting of IPCC, July 2004) , i.e an uncertainty of about 30%. As discussed above, the biggest uncertainties about the future are the economics, technology and rate of development going forward. The main cause of the spread in the widely quoted 1.5 to 5.8 C range of temperature projections for 2100 in IPCC is actually the different scenarios used. For lack of better information, if we (incorrectly) assume all the scenarios are equally probable, the error around the mean of 3.6 degrees is about 60%, not 400%. Crichton also suggests that most of his 0.8 C warming will be due to land use changes. That is actually extremely unlikely since land use change globally is a cooling effect (as discussed above). Physically-based simulations are actually better than just guessing.
Originally Posted by mayonaise
but i think epoch has it about right. global warming remains a theory - it should be open for debate, but is nowhere near proven fact. extreme cold spells like russia is experiencing may just be local weather conditions. that alone doesn't prove or disprove global warming. the earth's climate is an immensely complex system, that no matter how many computer simulations you run, or how much data you parse, "predicting" its behavior amounts to nothing more than a stab in the dark. a natural cooling or warming trend can take thousands, if not tens or hundreds of thousands of years to cycle through. it will be quite a long time before we get a good grasp on what causes them, and whether or not human activity impacts it significantly.
but that doesn't mean we shouldn't care about the environment and use it carelessly. even if we don't subscribe to the idea of global warming, it can't hurt to take care of the earth a little.
Although we probably would differ to the amount we would advocate of preventing this possible problem, I agree with this statement